Lgbt Rights Activists

"I think we're making some progress, but everybody knows that for decades now, not just under Biden, not just under Trump, but for decades now, what we have seen in America is an economy in which the very, very wealthy are doing phenomenally well while working families are struggling. Today, Bob, we don't talk about it much, we have more income and wealth inequality than we have ever had in the history of the United States. This is way before Biden. But what we're seeing now is 60 percent of our people living paycheck to paycheck, we have a health care system which is totally broken, we pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. We've got 18 million households, where people are spending 50 percent of their income trying to pay the rent or pay a mortgage. So, we have some structural problems in America. The Biden administration has made some progress, we have got a long way to go. And what the Democratic Party has got to do is have the guts to take on corporate greed, which is unprecedented, all over the economy. The people who own the large corporations have enjoyed record breaking profits, we got to create an economy that works for all, not just a few."

"We are living in an unprecedented moment in American history. Donald Trump is not only a pathological liar, has not only helped wage an insurrection … to prevent President Biden from taking office. Not only is denying American democracy — moving against the American democracy. So I think at this moment … we have got to bring the progressive community together to say, you know what, we're gonna fight for a progressive agenda. But we cannot have four more years of Donald Trump in the White House."

"Today, in terms of health, we have a dysfunctional healthcare system in which we spend the astronomical and unsustainable sum of nearly $13,000 for every man, woman and child, twice as much as most developed countries and almost 20% of our GDP. Yet, despite that huge expenditure, 85 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured and we have worse health outcomes and lower life expectancy than many other nations. While the insurance companies make huge profits, over 500,000 people declare bankruptcy each year from medically related debt, and over 68,000 die because they can’t afford the care they need. Our complicated and fragmented system is so broken that it cannot even produce the number of doctors, nurses, dentists and mental health personnel that we desperately need. As a nation, we must focus on the reality that the function of a rational healthcare system is to provide quality care for all, not simply huge profits for the insurance industry."

"While psychologists tell us that the first four years of life are the most important in terms of human intellectual and emotional growth, it’s hard to deny that our childcare system is in disarray. The cost is unaffordable for many working parents, there are not enough slots available, the quality is spotty and the pay and benefits childcare workers receive is unconscionably low. This is not how we should be treating our children, the future of America. The situation in K-12 education is not much better. For a variety of reasons – lack of respect, low pay, the stress of Covid and the politicization of school boards – thousands of gifted and dedicated teachers are quitting the profession, leaving students unprepared for the challenges they face as they enter the adult world. The future of this country depends upon the quality of education we provide our kids, and there is no reason why we cannot create the best public educational system in the world. In terms of higher education, we face the absurd situation of hundreds of thousands of bright young people who have the desire and ability to get a college education but cannot do so because their families lack the money. How many great doctors, scientists, and teachers are we losing as a result? There are also millions of young people who need training in order to become skilled mechanics, carpenters, welders, and electricians who are not getting the post-high school training they need. Further, 45 million Americans are struggling with student debt – sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars."

"In terms of labor and our economy, we must recognize that we live in a period of more income and wealth inequality than at any time in the last hundred years. While the very rich become richer and three people now own more wealth than the bottom half of American society, 60% of American workers live paycheck to paycheck and millions are trying to exist on starvation wages. Meanwhile, we have a pathetic federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour which has not been raised since 2009. As more and more workers try to improve their standard of living by forming unions, they are facing fierce and illegal union busting from such employers as Starbucks, Amazon, McDonalds and other major employers."

"There is a lot of discussion in the media about how “divided” our nation is and, on many issues, that is absolutely true. But what we don’t appreciate is that on some of the most important issues facing our country the American people – Democrats, Republicans, independents – are quite united. The American people know we are being ripped off by the drug companies and they want lower prescription drugs prices. The American people know that our healthcare system is outrageously expensive and they want universal and lower cost health care. The American people know that education is essential to our lives and the future of this country and they want high quality and affordable education from childcare to graduate school. The American people know that no one can survive on a $7.25-an-hour minimum wage, and they want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. The American people know that workers have a constitutional right to form unions and that corporations that engage in illegal union busting activities must be held accountable."

"At a time when too many Americans are giving up on democracy, now is the time to attempt to restore faith in our government. Now is the time for Congress to have the courage to take on the lobbyists and powerful special interests and show the American people that our government can work for them, and not just the 1%. Let’s do it."

"We were determined to protect progressive incumbents, including the members of the Squad- Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan- who had come under fierce attack from not just Republicans but many establishment Democrats, and much of the media, during their initial terms in office. All four members of the Squad had played outsized roles in shaping congressional debates in 2019 and 2020, giving voice to often neglected ideas, issues, and communities. They represented a breathe of fresh air in Washington, in no small measure because they were not afraid to speak boldly and bluntly. Their new style of politics was successful in energizing young people, not only in their own districts, but from coast to coast. I knew I had a lot in common with these women. Yes. I was at least forty years older than they were. Yes, I was a man and they were women. Yes, I was white and they were people of color. Yet several of us were immigrants or children of immigrants. We all came from working-class families that had struggled economically. And we all had to elbow our way into politics by taking on and defeating establishment candidates with campaigns that relied on grassroots support rather than the money power of the billionaire class."

"Our economic debates should not revolve around questions of resources. They should revolve around questions of intent, and will. If we truly intend to make America great, we will strive to be a nation that has eliminated poverty, homelessness, and diseases of despair, where hard work is rewarded with a living wage, and where those who are too old or too infirm to work are protected by a safety net that guarantees no American will be destitute. That's not all plan vision or some foreign construct. This country should have the best educational system in the world from childcare to graduate school- accessible to all, regardless of income. We should have a top-quality healthcare system allowing all people to walk into a doctor's office and get the care they need without worrying about the cost because the system is publicly funded. Instead of spending more money on the military than the next ten nations combined, we should lead the world in diplomacy and international collaboration, especially when it comes to preventing wars and combating climate change."

"Unlike every other major country on earth, all of which have universal health care coverage, most Americans continue to get their health care through their jobs. Within employer-based health care, the nature of your coverage depends upon the status of your job, the generosity of your employer, and whether you are represented by a union. There are literally hundreds of different plans- each with different degrees of coverage and cost. If you change your job, which millions of workers do every year, it is likely that your insurance coverage will change. That could mean a different network and different doctors, hospitals, and out-of-pocket costs. Worse yet, you could end up with no insurance at all. The absurdity of basing health care coverage on one's job became very clear to all during the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic meltdown of 2020. As millions of workers lost their jobs, they also lost their health care coverage. No job, no health care- in the middle of a pandemic, when you need health care the most. That make sense to someone. Not to me."

"As someone who has held hundreds of town meetings throughout the country, I have learned about another ugly and destructive aspect of our current health care system. Many workers stay at the job they have not because they like them, not because they are happy in their work, but because they have to stay in order to maintain decent health care coverage for their families. This reality has a significant impact upon our economy. How many great entrepreneurs, innovative businesspeople, and artists are unable to go out on their own because they will lose the health insurance they need? How many people become embittered, frustrated, and hateful because they are trapped in jobs they want to leave? Americans should not be chained to a job because of health insurance."

"As a presidential candidate and, more recently, as the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I've supported the struggles of working Americans in tough times and fought to give them a greater say in controlling their destiny. And frankly, I am frustrated by politicians who talk a good line about workers' rights on the campaign trail but then fail to deliver when they acquire power. That's bad policy, and bad politics. Democrats made an enormous and far-reaching mistake in the 1990s when President Bill Clinton aligned with Wall Street to approve so-called free-trade pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Workers felt betrayed, and it cost the party dearly in the disastrous midterm elections of 1994, when control of the House and Senate shifted to right-wing Republicans who cynically exploited the opening Clinton had given them. Workers understood that you couldn't be both pro-Wall Street and pro-worker. For many working-class Americans, Clinton's choice to side with Wall Street was the end of their allegiance to the Democratic Party, a trend which has only grown over the years. Democrats should have learned their lesson. But there is very little evidence that this has happened. Too many of them still do not understand that the policies of a party that is supposed to stand for workers must actually do so when in power."

"A job has to be more than just a job. As a U.S. senator and a candidate for president. I have traveled to workplaces in almost every state in our country. Along the way, I have visited with thousands of workers from all walks of life. What I've learned is that yes, of course, workers want good wages, good benefits, and good working conditions. But I have also learned that working people want more—something that most of them are not getting today. They want dignity. They want respect. They want a voice in the decision-making process. They are human beings and they want to be treated as human beings. Whether someone is working on a farm, or in an automobile factory, hospital, or school, or delivering mail or writing a book, they want to know that what they do is meaningful and appreciated. They want to have a say about the nature of their work and how it is done. No matter what the job may be, people thrive when they have re-warding work. We feel good about ourselves when we know we are making a contribution to our community, and when we have an opportunity to come up with more creative and effective ways to make that contribution. But, far too often in the uber-capitalist system that has developed in the United States, people don't get that sense of satisfaction. They feel, correctly, that they are cogs in the machine-exploited powerless, and disposable. In fact, for major employers like Amazon, Walmart, and the entire fast-food industry, the gross exploitation and discarding of workers is the foundation of their business model. In these corporations the turnover rate is extremely high as desperate workers come in, are worked too hard. earn starvation wages, more on, and are replaced by other powerless low-income workers."

"The decline of unions has cost American workers dearly, especially the young and people of color. No wonder so many Americans are frustrated. They are hurting, but they don't have the tools to fight back. The irony of our moment is that, even though unions are at just about the weakest point in my lifetime, public opinion polls show that they are more popular than at any time in decades. A Gallup survey done in August 2022 found that 71 percent of Americans approved of unions. That was the greatest level of support since 1965, and it was higher than at some points during FDR's presidency. At a time when the middle class continues to shrink, and more than half of our people live paycheck to paycheck, the average American knows that if we're going to rebuild the middle class, we need to rebuild the union movement. It's not just fierce opposition from the corporate world that makes union organizing increasingly difficult. It's the allies that the corporations have in the political world, where both Republicans and Democrats have pursued an anti-worker agenda. Over the past fifteen years, Republican governors and legislators in historically strong union states such as Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted so-called Right to Work laws. These measures bar unions from collecting dues from workers they represent, making it dramatically harder for workers to collectively bargain for better pay and benefits and safe workplaces. In the South, Right to Work (For Less) laws have been on the books for the better part of seventy-five years. The name is a lie. These laws have nothing to do with giving people a right to work. They are designed to make it more difficult for workers to organize strong unions that can bargain good contracts and have a voice in politics as the local, state, and national levels. In effect, they are laws that hold down wages and weaken protections for workers, and their presence in the statute books in southern states can be traced back to the days when segregationist politicians in both parties feared their integrated unions would advance the cause of both civil rights and economic rights."

"Medicare for All, free college education, and expanded Social Security, along with other universal guarantees, are good ideas in and of themselves, as is explained in other sections of this book. But they are dramatically more necessary in a transition period from an old economy to a new one. The best models for that new economy will include strong unions and well-defined workplace protections. But the definition of the workplace will change radically, making guarantees to workers unpredictable as the economy is transformed. The availability of health care and education—as human rights—will be essential. If people do not have access to them, they will be forced to work harder for less. Inequality will continue to increase and our political debates will grow more desperate. That doesn't have to be our future. By embracing Medicare for All, as well as plans to expand Social Security, we can ensure that working-class people—many of whom will find themselves self-employed or working in the gig economy—will not be left in the lurch because they do not have a steady employer that provides health benefits and a pension. And in an era where people will need more training and expertise than ever before, free college education should be a no-brainer."

"Research by the Institute for the Study of Employee Ownership and Profit Sharing at Rutgers University has found that employee ownership boosts company productivity by 4 percent, shareholder returns by 2 percent, and profits by 14 percent. This is a case where discarding the old uber-capitalist models and trying something new is good for workers and good for business. That's one of the reasons why I made employee ownership a big issue in my second presidential campaign. Under the plan that we developed during the campaign—and which I have since used as a basis for legislative proposals—corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, as well as all publicly traded companies, would be required to provide at least 2 percent of stock to their workers every year until the company is at least 20 percent owned by employees. This would be done through the issuing of new shares and the establishment of Democratic Employee Ownership Funds. These funds would be controlled by a board of trustees directly elected by the workers, and that board would have the right to vote the shares in the best interest of company employees—in the same way that other institutional shareholders vote their shares. The shares would be held in permanent trust for the workers, and so, while they have increase in value, they wouldn't be sold to speculators. But employees would benefit from the increased value through dividends paid directly to them."

"The trouble with debates about public education in the United States is that they rarely have anything to do with education—let alone establishing the habits of analytical thinking and civic engagement that give us the freedom to be more than just cogs in the machinery of corporate America. For the most part, in recent years, education debates at the national level and in communities across this country have been proxy wars for right-wing strategists who see schools as vehicles to advance their divide-and-conquer agenda. Cynical Republicans like Florida governor Ron DeSantis want to argue about whether students and teachers should be required to wear masks during a pandemic, about whether LGBTQ kids should be treated with respect, about whether educators should be allowed to teach the actual history of the United States—as opposed to a truncated version in which fundamental issues are ignored and critical thinking is disregarded. Amid all the political infighting over mask mandates and Critical Race Theory, about test scores and funding mechanisms, we've losing our focus on what matters most in education; the encouragement of students to explore big ideas, to learn how to assess what makes sense and what does not, to become engaged and active citizens who live happy and fulfilling lives. For education to get focused on the real needs, and the real possibilities for students in the twenty-first century, we have to break out the mentality that considers our elementary and secondary schools merely training grounds for workers."

"Instead of focusing on the vitally important questions that impact our society, including the impact of wealth and power on decision-making, corporate media most often on gossip, trivia, and personalities—especially when it is covering campaigns and elections. Is it important for citizens to know about the lives of those who seek public office—their honesty, experience, health, family, and history of personal relationships? Yes it is. But at the end of the day, elections have to be about a lot more than personality contests. We're not going to get any kind of progress in this country if the media remains obsessed with the "issues" of who is more "likable" and whom we would most like to have a beer with. I suspect that we will not be soon returning to the three-hour Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, but the focus of campaigns must be about what candidates stand for, and what they will do to improve our lives and the world we live in. Elections must center around the needs of the people, not the petty personal fumbles of the candidates. The focus on personalities unlinks politics from the major issues we face, dumbs down serious discussions, and deflects attention from the role that corporate interests and the billionaire class play in impacting the lives of the great mass of Americans. This, in turn, narrows the frame in which governing is reported and constrains the range of options that Americans believe are available. The issues that matter most to working-class Americans—a dysfunctional health care system, low wages, poverty, deindustrialization, the abandonment of working-class communities, and growing inequality—are neglected, and only grudgingly addressed when they cannot be avoided."

"As more and more newspapers go out of existence and vast stretches of the country become news deserts, we need to rethink how local media is maintained in order to guarantee that Americans can access the information they need to cultivate a vibrant democracy. In my view, there has to be significant public funding for diverse, competitive media at the national, regional, and local levels. That's not a radical idea. At the founding of the United States, the first Congresses provided massive postal subsidies to printers so that they could distribute newspapers. The subsidies went to all sides in the great debates of the early United States, and they fostered media diversity and discussion so intense that the French philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville determined, after touring the young country in the 1830s, that newspapers were an essential underpinning for "Democracy in America." Even now, almost two hundred years later, our largest media outlets enjoy massive subsidies. The public owns the airwaves of this country, yet media conglomerates claim exclusive use of those airwaves for their own economic benefit. Once they have obtained a license, they can bank whatever profits come to them from owning television and radio stations, and with the loosening of standards and regulations initiated by the w:Telecommunications Act of 1996 and industry-aligned members of the w:Federal Communications Commission, they have generally done so with little to no accountability."

"Republicans are constantly on the watch to exploit grievances. And what of Democrats? Do they counter the GOP strategies that deflect attention from the real sources of pain and frustration among working-class voters of all backgrounds? Ask yourself: What is the overall message of the Democratic president, Democratic congressional leaders, and the Democratic Party leaders? If Republicans have defined minorities or immigrants or gay people as "the enemy," and "the problem," who are Democrats calling out as the real culprits? Who are Democrats holding responsible for the pain that so many Americans are experiencing? It's not enough to simply say that the Republicans are engaging in ugly politics when they target immigrants, women, people of color, and the LGBTQ community. It's not enough simply to say that Trump and his followers are extremists who do not believe in democracy and the rule of law. Democrats should be making it absolutely clear that the people the Republicans take their money from, and the people whom Republican policies serve—the very rich and the very powerful individuals who seek an America where uber-capitalism defines every aspect of our economy and of our society—are the problem. There is a reason why Republicans oppose saving the planet, oppose taxing the rich, oppose regulating corporations. And oppose responding to inflation by addressing corporate price gouging and profiteering. They are delivering for their billionaire donors and their corporate sponsors. Pure and simple. Democrats should be making it clear that they are prepared to challenge the rich and powerful on behalf of the working class. This will resonate with the American people in ways that the GOP lies never could. Unfortunately, this economic justice message is rarely if ever delivered by the Democrats. And that has a lot to do with our broken campaign finance system and Democrats' dependency on campaign contributions from the wealth and powerful."

"Good policy is good politics. Standing up to corporate greed and improving the lives of the majority of the American people is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do politically. Democrats used to know this. That's why the party dominated congressional elections for the last half of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, too many leaders of the current Democratic Party have rejected the vision that made their party strong in the past- just as they have lost sight of what could make it strong in the future. The sad truth is that, if you boil it down, the essence of the Democratic message in recent years has been: "We're pretty bad, but Republicans are worse. So vote for us. We're the lesser of two evils!" Given the reality of the Republican Party today- their growing attacks on democracy and women's rights, their abysmal record on climate change and the environment, their support for tax breaks for the rich and cuts in programs for working families and the poor- there's more than a grain of truth in that message. And it might be enough to win elections in the short term- as was the case in 2020, and to a lesser extent in 2022. But what it doesn't do is get to the root causes of the Democratic Party's problems, let alone the country's problems. It doesn't generate grassroots excitement or coalition building. It doesn't strengthen our democracy. It doesn't create hope. It doesn't lay out a plan for the future that's based on the shared values that will bring Americans together to achieve great things. It doesn't recognize that, when the oligarchs and the corporate world are waging class war against working Americans, the working class needs a party that will fight back. And win."

"Our country faces unprecedented challenges today. They cannot be resolved with half-steps or compromises. There is not a middle ground between the insatiable greed of uber-capitalism and a fair deal for the working class. There is not a middle ground as to whether or not we save the planet. There is not a middle ground about whether or not we preserve our democracy and remain a society based on equal protection for all. Democrats face the most fundamental of all choices. They must choose whether to be on the side of the working class men and women who create the wealth of this country, or to be on the side of the billionaire class, and the wealthy campaign donors who hoard wealth for their own self-interest. By making unequivocal decision as to which side they are on in the class war, Democrats can finally enact policies to overcome uber-capitalism and the greed, inequality, and bigotry that have denied this country the promise of "liberty and justice for all." This is the stuff of a political revolution. A political revolution that every poll tells us the American people want. The danger for the Democratic Party is not being too bold. It's being too cautious. It's time, finally, for the Democrats to recognize that good policy is good politics. It's good for the country. It's good for the world. Let's do it!"

"[A]nyone who wants to talk about foreign policy or, for that matter, anything that goes on in Congress, without recognizing the corrupt political system that we have and the impact that money has over what we do, really doesn't know very much about what's going on."

"Look, at this particular moment in history, and perhaps at any moment in history, despair is not an option."

"The struggle is not whether AI is good or bad. It's who controls it and who benefits from it. That is really the the fundamental issue in my view."

"I will never tell you how to vote. If I do, don't listen to me."

"WASHINGTON − Progressive firebrand Sen. Bernie Sanders said he believes President Donald Trump is “moving this country rapidly into authoritarianism" after Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to help quell immigration protests in Los Angeles. “This guy wants all of the power. He does not believe in the Constitution. He does not believe in the rule of law. My understanding is that the governor of California, the mayor of the city of Los Angeles did not request the National Guard, but he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants,” Sanders, a Vermont independent, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”"

"The protests come as the Trump administration has taken stronger actions to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants. Demonstrators allege the administration's immigration enforcement has violated civil and human rights. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on June 7 that Trump signed a memo deploying the guardsmen “to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester.” Both California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, however, have criticized the move, saying it would only escalate tensions in the area. “I would say that to a large degree, the future of this country rests with a small number of Republicans in the House and Senate who know better, who do know what the Constitution is about, and it’s high time they stood up for our Constitution and the rule of law,” Sanders said."

"With President Donald Trump's deployment of 700 Marines to Los Angeles, Sen. Bernie Sanders took to the internet to offer his own thoughts. In a video posted to his X account, Sanders said the message he wishes to impart is not about the protests or the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in the California city but something that affects all Americans everywhere. "What's going on is all about Trump's never-ending desire for more and more power," Sanders said. The Vermont senator said that the 45th and 47th president is overriding the California governor's authority in order to consolidate more power with the U.S. military. Sanders also said that Trump is trying to wrest control from the judicial and legislative branch of government as well as stamp out universities' independence and private law offices. "Now is the time for us to come together and stand against authoritarianism and for democracy," Sanders said."

""I am 83 years of age, and I'm tired," Sanders said in a March interview. Sanders said in that interview that he felt proud that many voters in Vermont sent him back to Congress and that currently that is the work he is interested in doing. Despite his age, Sanders has filed for reelection in the future, not for president, but for the senatorial race in 2030, according to a January filing earlier this year."

"Whether one agrees with the myriad solutions Sanders lays out in his book to stop the scourge of uber-capitalism, there is no question that he has accurately framed the problem as being about freedom. The Vermont senator has been nothing short of prophetic in warning against the dire consequences of a culture that prizes productivity above all else and coddles and venerates the super-rich. Perhaps most of all, Sanders has powerfully articulated — both in his campaigns and his latest book — the profound lack of decency and utter immorality of the current American economic system. Now it’s up to all of us to decide what to do about it."

"Bernie Sanders lost his mind because I asked for that. He is exactly the reason we need it."

"It pained me that so many people regarded Bernie Sanders's 2016 campaign as a bitter defeat rather than a resounding victory in proving there was a constituency and momentum for progressive ideas that could be built upon in the years to come."

"Operating with the baseline assumption that Sanders runs only if Biden doesn’t, another condition is that no serious politician with Sanders’ worldview runs as well. If a credible advocate for democratic socialism and anti-imperialism steps up to the plate, then Sanders should use the occasion to pass the torch to the next generation and act as a surrogate for his chosen candidate. (Sanders’ circle has reportedly encouraged Rep. Ro Khanna of California to consider a presidential bid, toward that very end it seems.) Assuming those conditions are met, another Sanders run wouldn’t excite me the way his first two runs did, but it could still be a force for tremendous good. Sanders has become an extraordinarily influential politician through his previous two runs. In 2020, most of the major Democratic candidates took on some of his signature policy proposals like "Medicare for All" — or positioned themselves by holding them at some kind of measured distance. They did this because they believed that Sanders was tapping into real desires in the progressive Democratic electorate, and because they viewed Sanders as a serious threat whose ideas should be co-opted or moderated instead of ignored."

"Without Sanders or a Sanders-like figure in the mix, the 2024 Democratic presidential primary could easily end up feeling more like an attempted coronation than an open field. With Biden in the White House, and the specter of another Donald Trump presidential nomination from the Republican Party, Democratic voters will be primed to look for cues from Biden, party elites and the media on how to keep the boat steady while warding off another potential showdown against Trump. Biden administration figures like Vice President Kamala Harris or Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg are obvious candidates for Biden’s case for Biden 2.0. Without a serious lefty challenger, the primary debate could skew far too centrist — especially on economic issues, given the challenge of inflation — and focus too heavily on defeating Trump rather than laying out a robust, positive vision of how to address society’s ills."

"If Sanders were to run again, I’d probably bet on him losing again. In 2020 he underperformed by many metrics compared to his 2016 run against Hillary Clinton, and his continual problems with turning out Black voters, moderates and first-time voters in the primaries seem likely to encumber a third attempt as well. But in the unlikely event that he won, he would be well-positioned to beat Trump. Democratic turnout will be high in any general election against Trump; Sanders is immune to Trump’s powerful broadsides against establishment candidate corruption; and Sanders is uniquely well-suited for our populist moment. (None of this is to say I wouldn't have concerns about his age or his competitiveness against a different Republican nominee.) In an ideal world, Sanders is able to help foster the arrival of one of the next lefty champions in electoral politics. But given the right circumstances, he shouldn’t be ruled out as a valuable contributor to a future nominating contest that could be at risk of a dangerously narrow range of debate."

"All of this is hypothetical, of course, because the 79-year-old Biden insists he is running again. If he does, no Democrat can defeat him. And if Biden bows out, the front-runner for the nomination will be Kamala Harris. Harris cannot clear the field like Biden can, but she will carry a decisive edge as the sitting vice-president. The trouble for liberals is that Harris is at least as unpopular as Biden, and her prior campaign for the presidency was a disaster. Against Donald Trump or Florida governor Ron DeSantis, neither Biden nor Harris inspire a great deal of confidence. But all of this has obscured, for the most part, another dispiriting reality for the many progressives and leftists who have grown used to having one of their own run competitive races for the presidency: There is no obvious heir to Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator, now 80, will almost certainly not run for president a third time. Sanders is an unabashedly left-wing democratic socialist who won major states in both of his presidential bids. If 2020 was a step back for Sanders — he won far fewer votes against Biden than he did against the polarizing Hillary Clinton four years earlier — he still broke through on major terrain, beating the field in enormous states like California and growing his support with working-class Latinos. He was wildly popular with voters under 30. Outside of perhaps Jesse Jackson or George McGovern, there was never a presidential candidate like Sanders in modern American history: someone who contested a Democratic primary from the far left, against the full brunt of the political Establishment, and finished runner-up each time."

"Sanders had his weaknesses. He failed to win over a majority of Black voters, particularly those in the South, and struggled to compete with all voters over 50, who make up a large chunk of those who show up in primaries. His socialist brand limited him in states like Florida. His age, while a novelty in 2016, probably hampered him in 2020. A liberal coalition of Democratic voters, those deeply loyal to Clinton, always reviled Sanders, while his supporters who merely disliked her had evaporated four years later, choosing Biden instead."

"Where does the left go from here exactly? The most obvious successors to Sanders are the Squad: the leftist members of Congress who endorsed him for president and, in the case of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, worked on his first presidential campaign. None, including AOC, are probably in a position to run in 2024 because members of the House have struggled, historically, to mount serious presidential bids. AOC herself will be turning just 35, the minimum age required by the Constitution to serve as president. Another congressman, Ro Khanna of California, co-chaired Sanders’s 2020 campaign and has been talked about as a future presidential candidate, but unless he reaches a higher office, he is unlikely to ever be a top-tier national candidate. Jamaal Bowman, a Squad member like AOC, could be a compelling contender one day if he ever rises to mayor, governor, or senator in New York."

"If the Squad represents the future of the left after Sanders, they would be wise to learn from his example. While Sanders represents one of the smallest states in America, he first rose to power at a time when Vermont was still voting for Republican presidential candidates. Sanders existed in a political world in which his leftism had to be made palatable to the kind of voter who could have preferred George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. Representing a rural state that once swung between both parties, he developed an appreciation for talking to an ideologically heterodox constituency that wasn’t always going to support him on every issue. Sanders had to contort himself to appease gun owners and those who wanted a slice of the military-industrial complex at home."

"The 2016 version of Sanders was probably his best: leading with economic concerns and speaking, whenever possible, in universal terms. The left’s future will be in building a multiracial, working-class coalition that began to take shape under Sanders but never grew big enough to overcome Clinton or Biden. Sanders won millions of fans talking about free health care and free higher education, wisely rebranding “single-payer health care” as Medicare for All, name-checking the popular program for senior citizens. He was more attentive to issues of race than his critics gave him credit for, though he was never going to win over moderate Black voters by featuring more incendiary activists and public speakers on his campaign, such as the scandal-scarred Shaun King. His failure to proudly identify as a Democrat — he has been an independent his whole life — probably helped do him in, along with his criticisms of the Obama-Biden wing of the party."

"The emcee announced that next we'd hear from a presidential candidate, a U.S. senator from Vermont. The politician's name wasn't familiar to me, but I turned around to see if I might recognize him. I didn't. I saw an older white man with white hair. His wife smiled and waved in my direction. I turned back around and returned to fidgeting with the flatware. As he spoke, I listened, but I would be lying if I said I was engaged. But then I noticed that he was speaking frankly about the connection between racial justice and income inequality, and I heard him name mass movement as a solution. "We need to bring people together to take on the powers that be," he said. "When thousands and millions of people stand together, there is no stopping us. We can succeed." He had other clear ideas for solutions: "We need to demilitarize the police," he told the crowd, and finally, I heard him say, "Black lives do matter." I spun around. I couldn't believe what I'd heard. Every single other candidate refused to acknowledge the particular precarity we face in this country as Black people...I hadn't known anything about Bernie Sanders before I saw him onstage at the conference, but his boldness that day had opened my eyes. With his wild gesticulations, and unapologetic manner, he'd shown me that I didn't have to temper what I believed, even in a staid environment. From Bernie, I learned that I could run as myself. Now that I was vying for a Senate seat, I looked him up and scoured his website to learn more about him."

"Since Biden circa 2022 is often compared to 1970s Jimmy Carter due to a combination of sluggish job approval ratings, unhappy progressive activists, and big-time economic problems (especially inflation), it is germane to observe that Carter managed to soundly defeat Ted Kennedy — the liberal lion of the 1970s and subsequent decades — in the 1980 nomination contest. Are there any Ted Kennedys around right now to mobilize progressive anti-administration grievances into a successful insurgent candidacy? Someday, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may have that stature — but not now. Indeed, the only potential rival from any wing of the party who is in that position is Bernie Sanders, who is older than Biden. And even if there were some Kennedy-like figure available, would the fight disable the Democratic Party (as it arguably did in 1980) more than slogging ahead with the incumbent?"

"Nobody in their right mind believes Joe Biden is going to be on the ticket in 2024 and the vice president is certainly not up to this job. So, you've got people like Liz Warren who are now making all kinds of noises about taking the leadership reins of the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders this week talked about, well, if Biden's not on the ticket, I may make another run at the age of 135, but the progressives are really agitated because they're saying, "Look, we're going to lose in November because we have a messaging issue," which is not the case, "but also because we have not delivered on our agenda.""

"Bernie is a taker, not a maker"

"Sanders was one of just four members of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote against advancing the latest NDAA, which is on track to pass the upper chamber this week. Joining Sanders in voting no were Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). The House approved its version of the NDAA in September. None of the corporate-backed House Democrats currently holding up the reconciliation bill over purported concerns about its costs voted against the proposed Pentagon budget increase, which progressive lawmakers have tried unsuccessfully to block. In his floor speech Wednesday, Sanders pointed out that the Senate's 2022 military policy bill proposes spending "$37 billion more than President Trump's last defense budget and $25 billion more than what President Biden requested....Sanders' remarks on the NDAA... came as Democrats in Congress also worked to finalize the Build Back Better Act, a reconciliation package whose social spending and climate provisions have been gutted to satisfy right-wing members of the majority party such as Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)."

"Why is it OK for me to admit having used marijuana but not heroin? I know why, of course. Because most people have been led to believe that heroin is inherently a dangerous drug, whereas pot is just a harmless giggle. It's frustrating. Consider the remarks made by senator Bernie Sanders at the start of 2018 on this subject: "Marijuana is not the same as heroin. No one who has seriously studied the issue believes that marijuana should be classified as a Schedule I drug beside killer drugs like heroin." As politicians go, Sanders seems to be a fair-minded, well-intentioned individual. But his drug perspective is ignorant. Here's why: In order for a drug, any drug, to produce an effect in the brain, it must first bind to a unique site recognized by that drug. This site, this "receptor"-a specialized structure that recognizes and responds to a particular chemical-is endogenous, meaning that it's in all of us. We also have an endogenous chemical that binds to each of these receptors. That means, each of our brains contains heroin-like and THC-like chemicals and their corresponding receptors."

"There was a strange aftertaste to many of the calls for grand social reform in 2020. As the coronavirus crisis overtook us, the left wing on both sides of the Atlantic, at least that part that had been fired up Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, was going down to defeat. The promise of a radicalized and reenergized left, organized around the idea of the Green New Deal, seemed to dissipate amidst the pandemic. It fell to governments mainly of the center and the right to meet the crisis. They were a strange assortment. Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Donald Trump in the United States experimented with denial. For them climate skepticism and virus skepticism went hand in hand. In Mexico, the notionally left-wing government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador also pursued a maverick path, refusing to take drastic action. Nationalist strongmen like Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, Narendra Modi in India, Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey did not deny the virus, but relied on their patriotic appeal and bullying tactics to see them through. It was the managerial centrist types who were under most pressure. Figures like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in the United States, or Sebastián Piñera in Chile, or Cyril Ramaphosa in South Africa, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Ursula von der Leyen, and their ilk in Europe. They accepted the science. Denial was not an option. They were desperate to demonstrate that they were better than the 'populists.' To meet the crisis, very middle-of-the-road politicians ended up doing very radical things. Most of it was improvisation and compromise, but insofar as they managed to put a programmatic gloss on their responses—whether in the form of the EU's Next Generation program or Biden's Build Back Better program in 2020—it came from the repertoire of green modernization, sustainable development, and the Green New Deal."

"I think that Senator Sanders did a wonderful job. I think Michelle Obama was very powerful last night. But you’re right with Senator Sanders that — look, one of the things I noticed out there right now is that whether people are liberal or conservative, they’re Republican, Democrat, independent, what they want are solutions. And I think what Bernie did well in highlighting was this is what electing Joe Biden is going to mean for you and your family — raising the minimum wage, healthcare, a number of other things that are going to make people’s lives better. That’s what I think people want to know. You know, how is this person going to make my life and the life of my family and the country better than it is today?"

"As military historian and retired career officer Andrew Bacevich notes, “endless wars persist (and in some cases have even intensified); the nation’s various alliances and its empire of overseas bases remain intact; US troops are still present in something like 140 countries; Pentagon and national security state spending continues to increase astronomically.” When the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year came before Congress this summer, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a modest 10 percent reduction in military spending so $70 billion could be re-directed to domestic programs. Representative Barbara Lee introduced a House resolution calling for $350 billion worth of DOD cuts. Neither proposal has gained much traction, even among Democrats on Capitol Hill. Instead, the House Armed Services Committee just voted 56 to 0 to spend $740.5 billion on the Pentagon in the coming year, prefiguring the outcome of upcoming votes by the full House and Senate."